The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for State Authorities to produce necessary documents to establish the non-working of employees for 240 days, and the entitlement of daily wage workers to benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988.

ORDER :

NIRAL R. MEHTA, J.

[1] As the facts are similar and the issues are identical in all the captioned Letters Patent Appeals, those were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

[2] Heard learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr. Krutik Parikh for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. P. C. Chaudhari for the respondent No.1 in all the captioned Letters Patent Appeals.

[3] All the captioned Letters Patent Appeals Nos.137 of 2023, 138 of 2023 and 139 of 2023 arise out of the identical order dated 15th September 2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications Nos.1769 of 2020, 1771 of 2020 and 1778 of 2020 respectively.

[4] At the outset, it has been pointed out that an identical group of appeals being Letters Patent Appeal No.1557 of 2022 and allied appeals have been decided by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14th December 2022, wherein the Coordinate Division Bench, while dismissing the said group of appeals, upheld the judgment and order dated 5th November 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions.

[5] Learned advocates for the respective parties have candidly stated that present Letters Patent Appeals are also identical in nature and governed by the same facts of group of appeals being Letters Patent Appeal No.1557 of 2022 and allied appeals.

[6] In view of the aforesaid statement being made, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems fit to refer and rely upon the relevant observations made in the order dated 14th December 2022 passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in group of appeals being Letters Appeal No.1557 of 2022 and allied appeals. It can be read as under:

“8.0. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Considering the written statement filed before the Reference Court by the State Authorities, there is no contention raised by the State Authorities that the employees have not completed 240 days in any of the years, which it has claimed. It is true that some extract produced by the Authorities before the Tribunal suggest that in particular year concerned employees have not completed 240 days. However, if we examined the findings of the Tribunal with regard to issue no.5, it appears that the State Authorities have only examined one witness, however except his oral version, he has not produced any documentary evidence like attendance register or pay register, which shows the salary paid to each of the employees.

9.0. As far as judgment relied upon by Mr. Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Others (supra) is concerned, the facts in the aforesaid case is totally different. In the aforesaid decision, the Corporation has produced other important document like xerox copy of the employment given for particular period since original was with the employee itself. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in favour of the appellant whereas in the present case facts are different, therefore, the same would not be applicable in the present case.

10. When there is no specific contention raised by the State Authorities before the Tribunal about non-working of employee for 240 days in a particular year and if such facts have been deposed before the Tribunal, it was the duty of the State Authorities to produce the necessary documents to establish that the employees have not worked for 240 days. This aspect has also been considered by the learned Single Judge. The findings of the learned Single Judge recorded in para 19 to 27 reads as under:

“19. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, Labour Court has arrived at following finding of fact on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced before it :

i) That the petitioner was appo